`
`
`
`CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB No. 136411)
`cmorrow@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`BRYAN A. KOHM (CSB No. 233276)
`bkohm@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone:
`415.875.2300
`Facsimile:
`415.281.1350
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`HP Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:15-cv-02101-JD
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
`ORDER REGARDING FURTHER
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, a
`German company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff HP Inc., formerly Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”),1 and Defendant Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their
`
`respective counsel of record, submit the following stipulation:
`
`WHEREAS, pursuant to a September 8, 2015 Order, the Court stayed this case “pending
`
`resolution of the parties’ oppositions to the conditional transfer order filed on August 20, 2015 by
`
`
`1 Once the stay is lifted, HP will file a motion correcting its name resulting from the recent split
`of Hewlett-Packard Company.
`STIPULATION REGARDING FURTHER
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`Case No.: 3:15-cv-02101-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02101-JD Document 32 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation”;
`
`WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`
`Litigation vacated its order conditionally transferring the above-captioned matter to In Re: Papst
`
`Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880. See Order Vacating Conditional
`
`Transfer Order, MDL No. 1800 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 8, 2015), Dkt. No. 100;
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the stay of this case should now be lifted and have
`
`agreed upon a schedule for further proceedings;
`
`The Parties HEREBY STIPULATE that:
`1. Papst shall answer or otherwise respond to HP’s Complaint by January 8, 2016.
`2. Papst shall respond to the discovery propounded by HP prior to the stay of this matter
`
`by January 11, 2016.
`3. The parties are available to appear before the Court for a case management conference
`
`February 3, 2016, and request that the Court set a case management conference for
`
`that date or such other time that is convenient for the Court.
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bryan A. Kohm
`Bryan A. Kohm
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`HP Inc.
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`
`
`
`DESMARAIS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Richard Cowell
`Richard Cowell
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION REGARDING FURTHER
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 3:15-cv-02101-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02101-JD Document 32 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in
`
`the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bryan A. Kohm
`Bryan A. Kohm
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`HP Inc.
`
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: ________________
`
`
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`STIPULATION REGARDING FURTHER
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 3:15-cv-02101-JD
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
